April 27, 2022
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
A Council of State member (Appellant) challenged investigatory measures by Ghanas Economic and Organized Crime Office (EOCO) after the Receiver of Ideal Finance Ltd, appointed under the Banks and Specialized Deposit-Taking Institutions Act, 2016 (Act 930), referred preliminary findings about alleged financial misconduct to EOCO. He sought to set aside EOCOs invitation and restrain further disruption of his activities, alleging constitutional violations including presumption of innocence, privacy breaches, and unreasonableness in EOCOs procedures (long waiting, high bail, and dissemination of his image to the press). He also argued that Act 930 required the Receiver only to notify the Bank of Ghana and pursue civil remedies, not to trigger criminal investigations. The High Court refused interlocutory relief, and the Court of Appeal, per Ofoe JA, upheld that decision, finding EOCOs jurisdiction intact and no statutory abuse warranting injunctions, though noting EOCOs handling showed some unreasonableness and lapses in confidentiality.
V. D. OFOE, J.A.
This is an appeal against the ruling of the High Court dated the 7th of February 2020
dismissing the case of the Applicant/Appellant. The Appellant sought from the High
Court an order to set aside the invitation extended to him by the 2nd Respondent and all
consequential maHers arising therefrom. He further sought a restraining order against the
2nd Respondent from disrupting the activities of the Appellant without due process of the
law. These reliefs are on the motion paper filed on the 25th November 2019. In his
supporting affidavit he sought also an additional order to restrain the 2nd Respondent
from conducting the illegal investigations as well as doing anything that will breach his
guaranteed constitutional and human rights. In effect he is asking for:
1. an order to set aside the invitation extended to him by the 2nd Respondent,
including all other maVers arising from the said invitation
2. An order restraining the 2nd Respondent from disrupting his activities without
lawful excuse and due process of the law
3. An order restraining the 2nd Respondent from conducting the illegal
investigations
4. Or doing anything that will breach his guaranteed constitutional and human
rights
By these reliefs sought by the Appellant he has the duty to convince the court why the
whole statutorily established state investigative organ, the 2nd Respondent ((EOCO)
should have its invitation, to enable investigations commenced against him, set aside. He
has the further duty to convince the court that his lawful activities are being interrupted
by the 2nd Respondent or there is aHempt to do so. Also Appellant has a duty to prove
that there is illegal investigation going on concerning him by the 2nd Respondent and
therefore it should be restrained from any further investigations. Are there any
constitutional rights of the Appellant which have been breached or being breached by the
2nd Respondent, EOCO?
For a beHer understanding of the case of the Appellant and also a beHer understanding of
this opinion we provide a brief of the case of the parties.
The 1st Respondent is the receiver of Ideal Finance Ltd which is in receivership on the
orders of the Bank of Ghana acting in accordance with Section 123 of Act 930, the Banks
and Specialized Deposit-Taking Institution Act, 2016. The 2nd Respondent is a statutory
investigative body established under Act 804, Economic And Organized Crime Act, 2010
(Act 804)
Before the High C